The Big Sandy news. [volume] (Louisa, Ky.) 1885-1929, 1887-11-03
THE ANARCHISTS PLEA

General Hunt, OF Illinois.
WAsHINaToS. Oct 2S.-The hearing Of |
arguments for and against the motion for a |
writ of error in the case of the seven con= |
demned Anarchists, was begun yesterday
In the Federal Supreme Court, before the
full bench Following is n synopsis of the
plea of Hon. ], Randolph Tucker of yir-
ginia, for the defense:
The questions upon this application were,
first, have Federal questions been raised in this
ease and second, does their character Justify
their review in this courtf The act OF
1857, which has been deemed by this
court 10 be n substitute for the twenty-sixth
section OF the judiciary act, gives iuris.
diction first, where statute or authority cxer-
cised under the State Is repugnant TO the con-
sttutOn OF the United States; and second,
where right, privilege or immunity claimed
under the constitution is denied. Mr.. Tucker ar
gued that this statute should be construed lit
orally to the party making the appeal, since IT
was evidently the intention OF ITS frainers to
give free access to this court. Therefore, II
any litgant presents case in which the
question OF conflict between the rulings OF
court In the enforcement OF any
law of the Stats and the constitution
OF the United States afscs II is not neces-
sary thai such lltigant should establish actual
repugnance TO the constitution, but only to
show that there Is q conflict. The court, said
he, is city OF refuge from the avenger CT blood,
and man who comes here and takes hold OF
the horns OF the altar of justice can not be re-
fused a herring.
Mr. Tucker then said that in the order made
bs the court in this case 1t was announced that
q writ oferror dill not issue from this court, us
q matter OF course, but only upon proof that
| the petitioner was entitled TO 1t. He thought,
however, that II the court had jurisdiction then
| 4hn ttrft fec ~ M n ms n
establish the Jurisdiction OF the court It was
| only necessary TO show q conflict between the
| constitution and the rulings OF the court beloS.
Proceeding then TO the merits OF the case,
| Mr.. Tucker said that 1t was not necessary that
| q law OF "a State should be absolutely and on its
| face unconstitutional in order TO give this
court jurisdiction OF case under 1t. II
q law seemingly fair and Just on its
| face should haye put upon it by the
/ State courts q construction contrary 10
| The constitution that was enough 10 give this
| court jurisd ction. II any department OF a
i state government violates the terms OF the
| fourteenth amendment II is the State which
| violates II. Mr. Tucker then reviewed the
history OF the adoption OF the fourteenth
| amendment and discussed the meaning OF the
words "due process of law and said
that although it had been held
| by this court that trial without in
dictment by a grand jury might be due process
| OF laws and might he perfectly constitutional,
| II had never been held or intimated that trial
/ by petit jury could be dispensed with. II
/ seemed, he said, TO be every where conceded
| that "due process OF law" required trial by u
| jury OF ones peers 1t is essential that the jury
should be unbiased, unpreiudiced and impair
| tial and that it should not be class jury.
| Mr. Tucker then asserted that the jury law
| OF the State OF Illinois wns unconstitutional in
/ that il provided that the forming OF an opinion
i from reports or from newspaper accounts
i of u certain transaction should not nee
| essarily disqualify the person having such
| an opinion from sitting in judgment
on that transaction as juror Even
| although the law might seem 10 be fair and
| lust. II by construction and administration II
| we're made to deny TO the prisoners the right
/ of n trial by tar and impa al jury ther
| such construction and administration con
| stitutcd the law and made II unconsti
tutonal. The construction given to The
law in this case was different from tht
| construction given to 1t in a large mum
ber OF other cases in the same State. He ther
referred TO the objections made by the defens'
at the trial to the rulings Of the court in th'
matter OF challenges and to various other rul
ings and decisions OF the trial court which hat
The effect of denying TO the prisoners fair tria
by an impartial jury.
Turning them to another question raised By
the case, which, he said, was new one in thi:
court, he quoted the second clause of III
fourteenth amendment to the eflec
that no State shall make or en-
force any law which shall abridg
the privileges or immunities of citizen
of the United States Among the privilege
and mmunities' thus guaranteed by the 5oui
teenth amendment were, he contended, thos
sot forth in the first ten amendments to the Fec
eral constitution, such as "the right OF citizen
TO be secure in their persons, houses, paper
and effects against unreasonable searches an
seizures fourth amcndmenD, and the immt
nifty designated in the clause OF the lift
amendment which provides that no perso
shall be compelled in any criminal case TO be
witness against himself.
It was his belief that unless the privilege
nnd immunities set forth in the first ten ament
menis were specifically said in terms TO
merely limitations of Federal power they wer
privileges and immunites which come With
the privileges OF the fourteenth amendmer
and were guaranteed by it.
Justice Field-"Then you would bring a
questions to this court. can not conceive
any question which can not be brought here
the fourteenth amendment makes the priv
leges and immunities 10 which it refers includ
all those of the first ten amendments.
Mr. Tucker said he would admit that II wa
n new question but that he should like
argue ~, IN tue only TWO CuStS III WHlVH VI
question had been raised the context Shove
that the purpose was to limit the Federal poN
err " Now, l make the assertion,
said he that the right to be e.
empt from unreasonable searches on
seizures, the right to freedom.
speech, the right OF the citizen against sci
accusation, and the right of the citizen not
be twice tried by jury. which are secured
him by virtue of the constitution OF the Unit,
| CO tba fOtir me-
comes in and says that mo State shall NAL
or enforce any law which abrdges the rights
, PRIVILEGES OF cit2ons "
| Turning 10 the action and rulings of the tri
| court Mr. Tucker said that the defense we
, driven TO peremptory challenges In order to Q
I clude jurors who should have been rejected {
, cause, and that thereby there was limitatit
OF the right OF peremptory challenges. whit
this court has held to be one of the highest pri
ileges OF n prisoner
Mr.. Tucker animadverted severely upon u
ravaglng OF the petitioners private papers ~
] ELECTS, which were used in evidence again
/ them, thus compelling thom to be witness
q against themselves. He said the court lne
we'll that he had no sympathy with anarehis
or its purposes but that did not prevent hi
from asking justice for these men. ''rhe san
! constitution IS over us all. 1 nsk the court
>. interpose its shield and protect these men,
cause may need 1t myself l know OF
anarchy abroad in this land which I
American people need fear except q
achy in the administration OF Justice. fe
that when anarchy dons the ermine OF iusti
n and adm nisters lynch law in violation OF I
: supreme law of the land. Whether the prise
ers point can be sustained IS a question
can only decide after an examination OF I
record and hearing Strike after you hei
but don't strike before you hear
Attorney- General Hunt of Illinois, Il
lowed on behalf of the State His argune
! : was clear. calm and forclble, dealing on
u with the cold, abstract propositions of ID
i involved A synopsis is as follows:
j He claimed that to warrant the issuance
the writ It must appear from the record:
That there was Federal question involve
and Q. II must appear from the record tn
v such question was raised and decided
!, the State court The record did !
% show that any Federal question was
l. voved. The prohibitions contained In
Il thf ~